« Untimely grievances not arbitrable | Main | Litigating waives right to arbitrate »

Cert petition: Goodrich v. Machinists
September 07, 2005 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

A petition for certiorari was filed last week, raising two fascinating questions about (1) appealing court orders that enforce an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement and (2) a union's ability to sue on behalf of non-employee retirees.

The petition states two "Questions Presented"

1. In Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers, 353 U.S. 550, 551 (1957), this Court held that, “A decree under § 301(a) ordering enforcement of an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement is . . . a ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.”

The first question presented is:

In light of this Court’s decision in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001), is appellate jurisdiction for the review of an order compelling arbitration in a § 301 action now dependent upon the existence of a “final decision” as that term has been interpreted with respect to the Federal Arbitration Act?

2. Section 301(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act provides that, “Any labor organization which represents employees . . . may sue . . . as an entity [on] behalf of the employees whom it represents.”

The second question presented is:

Does a union have standing to sue a company in a § 301 action on behalf of a group made up entirely of non-employees?

The petition was filed September 2 by David Nagle of LeClair Ryan, the same lawyer that won one of the most important arbitration cases in the US Supreme Court - Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001).

My view:

These are important issues, worthy of the Supreme Court's attention.

1. Historically, courts have treated collective bargaining arbitrations differently from individual contract arbitrations when deciding whether a court order compelling arbitration is a "final order." That's because collective bargaining arbitrations fall under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and individual contract arbitrations fall under the Federal Arbitration Act. The petition in Goodrich claims that the 5th Circuit has blurred that distinction. I think so too. The question, then, is whether the historical distinction should be maintained or eliminated.
2. Section 301 allows unions to sue in federal court on behalf of "employees it represents." The union in the Goodrich case sued on behalf of retirees. By definition, they are not employees that the union represents for purposes of collective bargaining. However, these retirees all signed documents consenting to have the union represent them in the litigation. The 5th Circuit allowed the union to sue. The question, then, is whether to follow the text of Section 301 or to allow the documents signed by non-employees to override Section 301.

	Web www.LawMemo.com  This form will search the LawMemo web site. It does not include the Caselaw Database.